Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to announce that, following consideration of the responses to public consultation, I have today laid before Parliament the Waste Management (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006 No. 937), the Environment Act 1995 (Commencement No. 23) (England and Wales) Order 2006 (2006 No. (C. 934)) and a final regulatory impact assessment.
	The effect of Section 75(7)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is to exclude waste from premises used for agriculture and waste from mines and quarries from the waste management controls that apply to "controlled waste". The main purpose of the regulations is to repeal that exclusion and to apply to agricultural waste, and to non-mineral waste from mines and quarries, the national controls that are already in place to comply with the waste framework directive (75/442/EEC as amended) and the landfill directive (1999/31/EC).
	The exclusion in Section 75(7)(c) of the 1990 Act has been the subject of infraction proceedings on the waste framework directive. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued an adverse judgment on this infraction on 16 December 2004 (Case C-62/03) and a copy is available on the court's website at
	http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&Submit=Submit&docj=docj&numaff=C-62%2F03&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100.
	The exclusion also applies to the legislation transposing the landfill directive in England and Wales.
	At present, most agricultural waste is disposed of on-farm in "farm dumps" or by open burning. The regulations will ensure that agricultural waste is recovered or disposed of in ways which protect the environment and human health. The controls will be enforced by the Environment Agency, as the "competent authority" in England and Wales, in ways which are proportionate to the risk to the environment and human health. The existing controls have applied to all other sectors of industry and types of waste since May 1994 in the case of the waste framework directive; and since June 2002 in the case of the landfill directive.
	The main consultation paper was sent to 495 organisations and a summary, with a pull-out questionnaire, was sent to 162,000 farmers and growers in England and Wales. There were 103 responses to the main consultation and 2,485 responses to the summary questionnaire. A consultation report has been prepared in compliance with the Cabinet Office "Code of Practice on Consultation" and is available on my department's website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/topics/agwaste.htm.
	The regulations come into force on Monday 15 May 2006. The landfill directive's requirements, Section 33(1)(c) of the 1990 Act and the duty of care under Section 34 of the Act will apply from that date. However, the regulations contain transitional provisions which allow farmers six months from that date to register with the Environment Agency to transport agricultural waste on a professional basis or as a dealer or broker; and allow farmers 12 months to apply to the agency for waste management licences, to dispose of or recover agricultural waste on-farm, or to register licensing exemptions.
	A wide range of licensing exemptions will be available to farmers. As a result of discussions with the Agricultural Waste Stakeholders' Forum and public consultation, we have identified proposals for more licensing exemptions for agricultural waste covering the use of drum incinerators, waste disposal in the event of a plant health disease outbreak, the use of ash from the incineration of non-SRM pig and poultry carcasses, the use of biobeds for pesticide residues and the use of dredgings from ditch clearances. We propose to carry out a supplementary consultation exercise on these proposals for more licensing exemptions during the 12-month transitional period before the regulations' waste management licensing provisions come fully into force.
	The regulations also contain related or consequential amendments to existing regulations. The main amendments are:
	To ensure continuing compliance with the waste framework directive following the repeal of the animal waste directive (90/667/EEC) and the introduction of the EU animal by-products regulation ((EC) No. 1774/2002) which lays down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. The proposed amendments apply to animal by-products which are waste within the meaning of article 1(a) of the waste framework directive and are not excluded from the directive's scope under article 2;
	to repeal regulation 15 of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (S.I. 1994 No. 1056 (as amended)) and to amend the Groundwater Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998 No. 2746 (as amended)) to bring waste management licensing into line with other types of "authorisations" for the purposes of complying with the groundwater directive (80/68/EEC); and
	to address another aspect of the ECJ's adverse judgment on the waste framework directive infraction by amending Section 33(2) of the 1990 Act to provide that Section 33(1)(c) applies to household waste from a domestic property; and so to prohibit the disposal etc. of such waste by private individuals, within the curtilage of the property, in a manner likely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. The prohibition already applies to any mineral or synthetic oil or grease, asbestos and clinical waste by virtue of regulation 3(1) of the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992 No. 588).

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Barry Gardiner) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2006–07:
	to ensure that the following services: Companies House Direct, WebCheck, and Web-Filing, are available for 99 per cent of the time between the hours of 7 am and midnight, Monday to Saturday;
	to achieve 40 per cent take-up for electronic submission of documents 1 by the end of 2006–07 and 75 per cent take-up by the end of 2007–08;
	to achieve, on average, a monthly compliance rate for accounts submitted of 95.5 per cent;
	to ensure that of 99.5 per cent of images placed on the Companies House image system are legible;
	to achieve for 2007–08 a reduction in real terms of 10 per cent compared to 2004–05, in the unit cost of the range of transactions covering registration, company search and active register size;
	to achieve a score of more than 85 per cent in each quarterly Companies House Customer Satisfaction Survey;
	to resolve 97 per cent of complaints within five days.
	Central Government Targets
	These are targets that are common to other executive agencies:
	to achieve, taking one year with another, a 3.5 per cent average rate of return based on the operating surplus expressed as a percentage of average net assets;
	to pay all bills due within 30 days, or on other agreed credit terms, on receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice whichever is later;
	the Chief Executive to reply within 10 days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to her for reply.
	1 A document is an individual transaction that a company can make with Companies House to submit or register information.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My honourable friend the Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today making a Statement to the House to announce the Government's decision on the high-level regulatory regime to be put in place to regulate offshore electricity transmission.
	This is a key step in the delivery of the targets, goals and aspirations for renewable generation set out in the 2003 Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future—creating a low carbon economy.
	The White Paper set out four key goals of energy policy:
	to put the UK on a path to cut carbon dioxide (CO) emissions by some 60 per cent by about 2050;
	to maintain the reliability of energy supplies;
	to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond;
	to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated.
	Offshore renewable energy can make a major contribution to the delivery of the Government's target of 10 per cent renewable energy by 2010. Currently there is no regulatory regime in place covering the transmission connection of our second round of offshore wind farms (and the other marine renewables that may follow them) to the onshore electricity grid. However, the Energy Act 2004 gives the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry various powers to set up a regulatory regime for offshore transmission.
	The Government's aim has been to introduce a regulatory regime that facilitates the connection of a proportion of Round 2 (R2) projects in time to contribute to the 2010 target. That objective includes ensuring efficiency of connections and allowing for fair and open access for offshore generators.
	In making my decision I have sought to balance the achievement of the four White Paper goals. The right balance also needs to be struck between the interests of all stakeholders including consumers, offshore developers, transmission companies, and other generators. Grid connections are likely to form 10 to 15 per cent of capital costs for the Round 2 wind farms given the considerable cable lengths involved. Certainty about how the grid connection costs will be funded, and the regulation that controls them, is a key factor that developers need in preparing their business models.
	Broadly speaking the consultation document sought views from stakeholders on two high level options for this offshore regime. The main options set out were:
	extension of arrangements broadly similar to the existing onshore regulated price control approach offshore;
	a light touch regulatory approach with developers directly responsible for funding and construction of cable connections to the onshore system—the licence merchant approach.
	A third option was also included which is a sub-set of the first option above:
	extension of the existing onshore system offshore but with the addition of some limitation of the highest transmission charges.
	The approach
	I am announcing that the existing onshore regulated price control approach to electricity transmission should be extended offshore, and ruling out the licensed merchant approach.
	In making this decision I have also noted that this was also the option supported by the majority of respondents to the consultation exercise.
	I have concluded that the regulated price control approach has a number of clear advantages. Extending the regulated price control approach offshore will ensure consistency with the regulatory arrangements onshore. It will provide a financial benefit to offshore developers by spreading the costs they face to connect to the onshore electricity system over a number of years. The regulated price control approach will also mean that the responsibility for developing the offshore transmission network will be shared by the system operator and the transmission asset owners. This should help to ensure that the Government's renewable energy targets are achieved.
	In taking this decision I have sought to put in place a regulatory framework that includes a fair and transparent approach to transmission costs consistent with those faced by onshore generators. At this stage there is insufficient information to indicate that the level of transmission charges offshore would deter renewable generation. Based on the information currently available, the Secretary of State does not foresee a need to consider capping transmission charges offshore for the planned Round 2 wind power projects. However, he will continue to keep this under consideration as different offshore technologies develop, taking account of the Government's targets and aspirations for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and the cost to consumers being acceptable. Full consultation with all interested stakeholders on any future proposal of this sort would be essential.
	It is likely to be at least 18 months before the necessary programme of technical work to determine the level of charging is completed, by which time the Energy Review will have concluded. The impact of those charges could therefore be considered in the context of any conclusions that have emerged from the review.
	It is important to bear in mind that regulated price control offshore, while providing the advantages to generators that I mention above, would still involve the charges they face being based on the costs of their connections. The main consideration with the options consulted on was how these costs will be financed. Under the regulated price control approach the costs will be recovered from developers through an annual transmission charge over a fixed period. Under the licensed merchant approach the cost of building the connection would have been met by developers upfront themselves. Only under the price control approach with capping would there be an extra element of cross-subsidisation from other users of the system.
	A fuller consideration of the issues behind my decision can be found in the Government Response to the joint DTI/Ofgem Public Consultation on the Regulation of Offshore Electricity Transmission, which is published today and is available in the Library of the House, together with an updated regulatory impact assessment.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On 2 March 2004 it was announced, in a Written Ministerial Statement, that the Government had decided that the Lord Chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage should revert to the Crown, acting through the Prime Minister. The Government have now decided not to proceed with that decision, but instead to retain the current arrangements. The original decision was taken in the context of the proposed abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor. In the light of the changed context of the retention of the office of the Lord Chancellor, I have concluded that changing the current arrangements for ecclesiastical patronage would not improve the efficiency of the appointments process nor would it contribute to the reform of the office of the Lord Chancellor in the way originally envisaged.
	This decision takes into account the views of those responding to the consultation paper Constitutional reform: reforming the office of the Lord Chancellor, published in September 2003. The majority of respondents favoured the retention of the services of the Ecclesiastical Office at No 10, expressing their confidence in and appreciation of that office's work.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office (Mr Murphy) has today published a report on departments' and agencies' performance on handling Members' and Peers' correspondence for 2005. Details are set out in the attached table. Departmental figures are based on substantive replies unless otherwise indicated.
	The footnotes to the table provide general background information on how the figures have been compiled.
	Correspondence from MPs/Peers to Ministers and agency chief executives
	
		Correspondence from MPs / Peers to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives1
		
			  20042005  
			  Target set for reply (working days) Number of letters received Percentage of replies within target Target set for reply (working days) Number of letters received % of replies within target 
			 Department or Agency  
			 Cabinet Office 15 637 88 15 537 97 
			 Department for Constitutional Affairs 20 3,416 64 20 3,179 92 
			 Court Service 15 429 95 15 359 99 
			 HM Land Registry 20 44 95 15 55 96 
			 National Archives 15 149 100 10 30 100 
			 Northern Ireland Court Service2 15 14 92 – – – 
			 Official Solicitor and Public Trustee 15 17 100 15 26 100 
			 Public Guardianship Office 15 134 93 15 112 99 
			 Crown Prosecution Service 15 520 98 15 476 98 
			 HM Customs and Excise3 18 1,321 51 – – – 
			 Department for Culture, Media and Sport 18 4,817 78 20 5,085 63 
			 Ministry of Defence4 15 5,989 62 15 5,378 79 
			 Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency 15 126 99 15 207 99 
			 Defence Estates2 15 11 100 – – – 
			 Veterans Agency 15 287 99 15 138 99 
			 Warship Support Agency2 15 15 91 – – – 
			 Department for Education and Skills 15 15,313 93 15 18,547 86 
			 Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs 15 14,305 81 15 12,051 75 
			 Food Standards Agency 20 782* 59 20 738* 73 
			  20 78** 95 20 91** 90 
			 * Letters where Health Ministers have replied. 
			 ** Letters where Chief Executive/Chairman hasreplied. 
			 Foreign and Commonwealth Office5 20 26,942 83 20 9,588 80 
			   
			 UK Visas6 15 12,849 45 15 9,189* 45 
			 20 1,720** 58 
			 *Letters where UK Visa officials have replied.  
			 **Letters where FCO Ministers have replied. 
			 Department of Health 20 20,140 80 20 20,155 91 
			 Medicines and Healthcare Products RegulatoryAgency 10 284 81 10 340 92 
			 NHS Estates7 20 112 73 20 90 86 
			 NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency 20 57 60 20 32 86 
			 Home Office (non IND correspondence) 15 9,445 76 15 8,899 79 
			 Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND)8 20 35,802 34 20 41,063 53 
			 Criminal Records Bureau 10 272 95 10 471 94 
			 HM Prison Service 20 1,154 73 20 868 80 
			 UK Passport Service 10 486 74 10 524 60 
			 Department for International Development 15 4,686 80 15 4,593 67 
			 Inland Revenue3 18 2,993 85 – – – 
			  18 1,601* 45 – – – 
			 *Local tax office delegated figures (where local tax offices have replied direct to MPs)  
			 Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lord's Office 15 60 87 15 143 95 
			 Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers 20 404 63 20 335 68 
			 Northern Ireland Office 10 567 68 10 742 64 
			 Compensation Agency 7 125 67 7 62 100 
			 Northern Ireland Prison Service 10 48 85 10 39 92 
			 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 15 10,135 81 15 8,937 79 
			 Planning Inspectorate 8 379 81 10 243 67 
			 Office of the Leader of the House of Commons 15 504 95 15 302 97 
			 Scotland Office 15 82 77 15 56 53 
			 Department for Trade and Industry9 15 11,807 72 15 10,821 50 
			 Companies House 10 56 98 10 38 100 
			 Employment Tribunals Service 10 61 93 10 91 95 
			 Insolvency Service 10 33 94 10 99 98 
			 Patent Office 10 297 84 10 496 94 
			 Department for Transport 15 8,593 86 15 7,849 80 
			 Driving Standards Agency 15 198 79 15 89 87 
			 DVLA 7 1,276 100 7 1,113 100 
			 Government Car and Despatch Agency – – – 7 16 100 
			 Highways Agency 15 285 95 15 287 99 
			 Maritime and Coastguard Agency 10 20 100 10 18 100 
			 Vehicle and Operator Services Agency 15 13 77 15 16 94 
			  
			 HM Treasury10 15 4,316 86 15 2,585 84 
			 HM Revenue and Customs3 – – – 18 4,231 72 
			 18 1,601* 45 
			 National Savings and Investments 15 74 92 15 21 95 
			 National Statistics 15 189 95 15 155 91 
			  10 133 73 10 114** 84 
			 Valuation Office 18 18 83 18 21 80 
			 *Local Tax Office 'Delegated' figures (where local tax offices have replied directly to MPs). The marked increase in correspondence in quarters 3 and 4 of 2004 continued throughout 2005 unabated. Clearances during the year were affected by moving some complaint drafters to help to clear Disputed Overpayments. Currently restructuring how we deal with complaints and performance should improve. 
			 **Letters where National Statistician replied on Ministers' behalf 
			 Treasury Solicitor's Department 10 49 98 10 28 100 
			 Wales Office 15 109 92 15 83 80 
			 Department for Work and Pensions 20 13,319 86 20 10,596 90 
			 Appeals Service 15 50 98 15 60 95 
			 Child Support Agency 15 5,390 88 15 5,367 99 
			 Debt Management 15 25 100 15 35 100 
			 Disability and Carers Service 15 451 100 15 425 100 
			 Health and Safety Executive 10 127 70 15 77 77 
			 Jobcentre Plus 15 1,136 90 15 1,062 90 
			 The Pension Service 15 1,340 89 15 1,042 98 
		
	
	1 Departments and Agencies which received 10 MPs/Peers letters or fewer during 2005 are not shown in this table. Holding or interim replies are not included unless otherwise indicated. This report includes letters from prospective candidates prior to the general election. The report does not include correspondence considered as Freedom of Information requests.
	2 Received fewer than 10 letters in 2005.
	3 With effect from 1 April 2005, HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue merged to form HM Revenue and Customs.
	4 Includes a small number of letters from members of the public that received a ministerial reply. Figure also includes some FOI requests, though these represent less than 1 per cent of total reported.
	5 Reduced volume of correspondence compared to previous years reflects the setting up of a central correspondence system and the introduction of a more accurate method of monitoring letters received.
	6 Poor performance caused by backlog of cases and resource issues. Performance for December 2005 was 75 per cent, increased to 81 per cent in March 2006.
	7 Abolished in September 2005.
	8 IND saw an increase in volume of 15 per cent between 2004 and 2005 (6 per cent increase in ministerial, and 21 per cent in official replies). During 2005 all official replies were again signed off by IND senior executive group members which inevitably built delays into the system, but had the effect of significantly enhancing the quality of replies.
	9 Performance slipped last year due to internal reorganisation following a reduction in staff numbers. Launch of new centralised response unit will raise level of performance.
	10 Includes all ministerial correspondence.

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	My Statement to the House of Commons on 28 March reaffirmed our commitment to secure the continued affordability and viability of the Local Government Pension Scheme and to provide secure, equality-proofed pensions for its existing and future membership.
	A statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament today to remove the 85-year rule from the scheme from 1 October 2006 in order to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC. The regulations will also provide protection for existing scheme members who will be 60 and satisfy the 85-year rule by 2013 and will introduce significant and well supported flexibilities into the scheme's legal framework to reflect the simplified tax regime provided by the Finance Act 2004.
	In the light of discussions held yesterday with the trade unions and local government employers, we are calling on both sides to begin talks, to start now on a nothing ruled in nothing ruled out basis, to address the protection of existing scheme members, the recycling of savings, and the development of a more equitable scheme.
	The Government stand prepared to introduce further amendments before the Summer Recess to update the regulations in light of any agreed proposals which emerge from the talks between the trade unions and local government employers.
	The Government are committed to good quality pensions for local government workers without placing an unfair burden on taxpayers.

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Shaun Woodward) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have placed copies of the Northern Ireland Prison Service's Corporate and Business Plan for 2006–09 in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The Corporate and Business Plan contains key performance targets I have set for the service for 2006–07. These are:
	no escape for top and high-risk prisoners;
	no more than three escapes per 1,000 medium and low risk prisoners;
	the number of staff assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of three per 100 prisoners;
	the number of prisoners assaulted by prisoners is less than a ratio of four per 100 prisoners;
	an average of at least 20 hours constructive activity per week for each sentenced prisoner;
	an average of at least 10 hours constructive activity per week for each remand prisoner;
	to ensure 87 per cent of prisoners serving six months or more are working to a resettlement plan and that 97 per cent of lifers work to a life sentence plan, including preparation of the plan, within the first six months of sentence;
	each member of staff should receive an average of five training days;
	Reduce the rate of absenteeism across the service to 13.75 days per head by 2006–07 with an overall reduction in sick absence of 30 per cent by 2009–10;
	lay the Annual Report and Audited Accounts before Parliament prior to the Summer Recess; and
	ensure the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed £85,250.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The fifth report of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB) on the pay of in-charge governors and operational managers, prison officers and related grades in England and Wales in 2006 has been published today and copies will be placed in the Library. I would like to thank the chair and members of the PSPRB for their hard work in producing their recommendations.
	The PSPRB have recommended an increase in basic pay for all grades of £425 or 1.6 per cent, whichever is the greater. The recommendation will lead to a growth in pay bill of 2.57 per cent to £849 million (excluding on-costs), which is at the upper limit of affordability.
	The Home Secretary has decided that the recommendations will be implemented in full, with effect from the operative date of the award of 1 April 2006. The cost of the award will be met from within the existing budget allocation for the service.
	The Government desire significant improvement in the Prison Service pay and grading structure. It is asking the trade unions to be fully engaged in talks and to commit to:
	Participation in the development of the service wide job evaluation system, initially through positive engagement with the eastern area pilot, which has already commenced.
	Work in partnership with Prison Service management and take forward the principles covered in last year's heads of agreement talks.
	Immediately re-engage with the performance improvement process.
	Reform the Whitley Council arrangements with a view to establishing long-term partnership agreements based upon single table talks and compliance with the information and consultation of employees directive.
	The Home Secretary expects the trade unions to engage with the Prison Service in talks towards workforce reform based on these principles. The outcome of those talks are likely to inform his remit to the pay review body in respect of next year's pay review.
	The key pay review body recommendations, which take effect from 1 April 2006, are:
	an increase in basic pay for all grades of £425 or 1.6 per cent, whichever is the greater;
	pay range minima for operational managers to be increased by six spine points, with no change to the range maxima;
	two additional rates of locality pay at £4,250 and £250: all other rates remain unchanged;
	all specialist allowances to remain at their current level;
	all other allowances and ex-gratia payments to be uprated by 1.6 per cent;
	RHA for operational managers to be uprated by 1.6 per cent;
	care and maintenance of dogs allowance to be uprated by 3.2 per cent; and
	notional rents to be increased by 3.2 per cent.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Today we are publishing the Government's response to the consultation paper, Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-offending, published on 20 October 2005.
	On 9 February 2006 we set out our Five Year Strategy for Protecting the Public and Reducing Re-offending. At the heart of our strategy is improved public safety and the reduction of re-offending through the development of more effective end to end management of offenders, throughout the sentence. Every offender will have a named offender manager who will be responsible for making sure that they are both punished and properly rehabilitated, and that the public are protected. They will manage the offender, often from before they are sentenced, throughout any prison sentence, and then during time on a community sentence or on licence in the community.
	Regional offender managers need to be able to fund the delivery of specified contracts based on evidence of what reduces re-offending rather than leaving the prison and probation services to decide what to deliver. The current legal framework allows the Home Office to commission prison services—but not for probation. This asymmetry is one of the biggest barriers to realising our vision of joining up offender management from custody into the community. We will therefore be bringing forward legislation to improve the position.
	During the consultation period we received 748 written replies and met a range of key stakeholders. The document we are publishing today summarises those replies and explains how they will be taken into account as we develop our proposals to reduce re-offending and increase public safety.
	We will introduce legislation to give effect to these changes as soon as parliamentary time allows.
	Copies of the report are being placed in the House Libraries.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Today the Government have published statistics on race and the criminal justice system. The statistics, published under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, are one of the main sources of information available on black and other minority (BME) ethnic groups' experiences across the CJS.
	The Government are committed to delivering a CJS which promotes equality, does not discriminate against anyone because of their race, that has a workforce which fairly represents the communities it services and is effective in rooting out and tackling racism and racist crime.
	The statistics published today show that significant progress has been made but that there is still much to do. For example, on race hate crime, the statistics show that racist incidents recorded by the police rose in 2004–05 but that the British Crime Survey (which is a large scale survey based on reports of people's individual experience) estimated that the number of racist incidents fell. That might be an indication that the progress we have made in investigating and prosecuting hate crime has given people greater confidence to report incidents and been effective in preventing them happening.
	The representation of BME groups working for CJS agencies has improved. In 2004–05, the police service, the Prison Service, the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service and Crown and magistrates' courts all recorded an increase in the number of BME staff.
	There are signs that the confidence of BME groups that the CJS will treat them fairly is improving. The Government have set a target to reduce the percentage of people from BME communities who believe they would be treated worse than people from white communities by one or more CJS agency. The most recent Home Office Citizenship Survey (which is the basis for the measure) shows that, while there has not been a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of people from BME communities who believe one or more agency might discriminate against them, there has been a significant reduction in the proportion who believe it of the courts, the police, the CPS and the Prison Service.
	But the Government are not complacent and acknowledge that there is still much to do. The statistics reveal that BME people continue to be disproportionately represented in the CJS. While those data do not necessarily mean there is discrimination it is an issue the Government are committed to addressing. In key areas such as the use of stop and search the statistics do not reveal an increase in the disproportion between different groups but neither has there been a reduction.
	The Government have a programme of work to understand and address this and other issues. While the ultimate outcome of this work will be to secure a reduction in the levels of inappropriate disproportion as well as increased BME community confidence in the CJS it will take time for the initiatives to have an impact.
	We will continue to use these statistics to drive forward further change by ensuring that all agencies continue to scrutinise their policies and standards, and work towards ensuring services are delivered fairly to all communities.
	Copies of the statistics will be placed in the House Library and can be accessed on the Home Office Website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/section951.html.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Alistair Darling) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I reported on 14 February 2006 that my department has been considering its future relationship with London and Continental Railways (LCR), which is responsible for the construction and operation of Channel Tunnel Rail Link and had also been independently approached by a third party, with an interest in the potential acquisition of the shareholders' interests in LCR. I announced on 1 March 2006 that, given such interest, the best way of delivering continuing value for money for the taxpayer would be for there to be an open, transparent, competitive process and that my department was discussing this approach with LCR's shareholders.
	Having considered the matter, it is clear that certain shareholders do not wish to sell their shares at this time. Meanwhile, LCR and its shareholders have proposed a significant overhaul of the future relationship with the department, which I welcome. There is therefore no need to proceed with a competitive process now. My main concern is to secure best value for taxpayers as well as continuing value for money and so we will look again with shareholders at a later stage, probably once the Channel Tunnel Rail Link has been commissioned, which we expect to be in 2007.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Derek Twigg) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	Today, the Department for Transport has published the north-east regional planning assessment for the railways (RPA), the second in a series of eleven RPAs covering England and Wales. The north-east RPA covers the north-east of England region and a small part of north Yorkshire where the railway services are closely linked to the north-east network.
	RPAs are the key link between regional spatial planning (including preparation of regional transport strategies) and planning for the railway by both government and the rail industry and are designed to inform the development of the Government's strategy for the railway. They look at the challenges and options for development of the railway in each region over the next 20 years, in the wider context of forecast change in population, the economy and travel behaviour. An RPA does not commit the Government to specific proposals. Instead it sets out the Government's current thinking on how the railway might best be developed to allow wider planning objectives for a region to be met and identifies the priorities for further development work.
	The area covered by the north-east RPA has a population of just over 2.5 million, mainly concentrated around the two major conurbation areas of Tyne and Wear and the Tees Valley. While population levels are not expected to grow significantly, structural changes in the type of employment available are expected to increase labour market participation rates and prosperity for residents of the region. In general, greater prosperity can be expected to lead to more trips and longer travel distances for all types of journey. Growth in rail passenger journeys is forecast for the region and it is expected that there will be particular growth in longer distance journeys, linking the north-east to other regions.
	Planning for railways in the north-east needs to take into account a changing economic and social context. Rail has a part to play in addressing national and regional government agencies' aims to close the gap that has opened up between the prosperity of the north-east and the rest of the UK over the next decade. This aim is the prime objective of recent initiatives such as the Northern Way, which have influenced the formulation of the north-east RPA.
	The RPA clarifies the role of the railway in the region, its contribution to the economy and its place in the overall transport system, setting out where greater rail capability and capacity will be needed over the next 20 years, and the options for responding to that need. In the shorter term it recommends optimising timetables, improving accessibility and interchanges, and matching resources to demand to best use existing capacity and improve performance.
	Copies of the document have been placed in the House Library.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Transport (Dr Stephen Ladyman) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have today approved the operational cases submitted by the 38 safety camera partnerships in England and Wales to enable them to continue as part of the national safety camera programme in 2006–07.
	As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Alistair Darling) announced on 15 December 2005, 2006–07 will be the last year of the safety camera programme under the current netting off funding arrangements.
	The department has worked closely with the safety camera partnerships to help them to develop operational cases for 2006–07 which will ensure that all camera activities continue to contribute to reducing speeds and casualties and assist in the achievement of the 2010 casualty reduction targets.
	All activities and camera sites will comply with the Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the Safety Camera Programme in England and Wales for 2006/07 which we published on 30 January 2006.
	In 2006-07, the 38 operational cases project that there will be, in total:
	expenditure of approximately £109 million;
	fixed penalties of approximately £120 million;
	some 300,000 speeding offenders referred to speed awareness courses, which are being rolled out nationally by the Association of Chief Police Officers from 1 April 2006;
	233 new safety camera sites (fixed, mobile, route and red light);
	30 existing sites decommissioned.
	Below is a table which shows a breakdown for each partnership.
	
		New sites proposed
		
			 Partnership Proposed Total Expenditure Fixed Mobile Red Light Route Total Sites to be decommissioned in 2006-07 
			 Avon & Somerset £4,618,076 0 0 0 0 0 4 
			 Bedfordshire £2,683,684 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Cambridgeshire £1,294,346 0 0 0 0 0 2 
			 Cheshire £1,859,491 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Cleveland £1,360,810 0 2 0 0 2 0 
			 Cumbria £2,337,328 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Derbyshire £1,651,150 1 3 0 0 4 0 
			 Devon & Cornwall £2,907,034 0 12 1 0 13 2 
			 Dorset £3,111,530 0 3 0 0 3 1 
			 Essex £4,318,462 5 21 0 0 26 0 
			 Gloucestershire £721,256 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Gtr Manchester £3,148,769 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Hampshire £2,809,805 0 0 0 0 0 1 
			 Hertfordshire £2,841,000 0 2 0 0 2 0 
			 Humberside £2,356,799 1 0 0 2 3 0 
			 Kent £2,958,577 1 8 1 0 10 0 
			 Lancashire £2,832,446 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Leicestershire £1,574,406 0 5 0 1 6 1 
			 Lincolnshire £1,475,325 0 1 0 0 1 1 
			 London £10,219,014 21 0 0 0 21 5 
			 Merseyside £1,672,308 4 23 0 0 27 0 
			 Norfolk £1,337,916 2 9 0 10 21 0 
			 North Wales £3,187,055 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Northamptonshire £2,880,879 1 7 1 0 9 0 
			 Northumbria £2,577,231 1 10 3 0 14 0 
			 Nottingham £3,372,726 5 4 0 0 9 0 
			 South Wales £5,942,575 0 0 0 0 0 2 
			 South Yorkshire £3,131,522 3 7 1 0 11 0 
			 Staffordshire £2,211,634 0 0 0 0 0 1 
			 Suffolk £1,990,180 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Surrey £1,596,551 2 2 1 0 5 0 
			 Sussex £2,613,412 3 2 0 0 5 0 
			 Thames Valley £5,375,651 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Warwickshire £2,552,000 2 3 1 0 6 0 
			 West Mercia £2,629,648 1 1 0 0 2 0 
			 West Midlands £3,179,139 0 0 0 0 0 10 
			 West Yorkshire £3,253,970 6 23 0 0 29 0 
			 Wiltshire £2,743,808 0 4 0 0 4 0 
			 Total £109,327,513 59 152 9 13 233 30

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of a DfID report, The UK and the World Bank 2005.
	This report explains the UK's work with the World Bank from the start of the bank's financial year 2005 (known as FY05: July 2004–June 2005) through to its annual meetings in September 2005. It sets out the positions the UK took in a number of discussions at the bank—on the bank's support to poor countries' development, its role in responding to debates on global issues such as debt, and its institutional effectiveness. The report also records the UK's position on resolutions adopted by the board of governors. It is an annual publication, and the next report will cover the period October 2005–September 2006.
	During the year the UK: helped to secure a large increase in the aid the World Bank will give to the poorest countries via its International Development Association; brokered a historic debt deal that will write off 100 per cent of the debt owed by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries to the World Bank, the IMF and the African Development Bank; encouraged the bank to step up the pace of its work in Africa with a new Africa Action Plan; and convinced the bank to review its use of conditionality, leading to a set of good practice principles which reflect the spirit of the UK's own policy. We will report on the implementation of these commitments in our next report on the UK and the World Bank.